From Simon Walley Sent Wed, Jan 6th 1999, 12:29
>From: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >Subject: Re: (idm) why mask should be bootlegged > >again. I have clearly said that any money gained should be given back to >the label. How does that not support the label? Again - what if Mask decide to re-issue the 12"s or do a comp. CD? Bootlegs (esp. if popular and widely dispersed) could well affect these sales. And once more - has anyone asked Mask to see if this money (which is unlikely to be much) would be welcome? Are they strictly against bootlegging or don't they care? But thats just the financial support. Some of the artists might not want their tracks re-issued or (especially) bootlegged for whatever reasons. The "rip-off" aspect applies to artistic issues as well as financial ones. >I will restate no one ever said rip skam off. What was said is that a >bootleg was in order A bootleg "was in order"? Are there IDM label police around whose job it is to ensure 'fairness'? Because you've got a big fucking job on your hands. >because mask knowingly created a situation in which >they knew bidding wars would happen. Naturally. If something is rare and it has a fanbase (however small), there will be a demand that outstrips supply. >my last word on it. I started a label. We go to press this month. I am >giving back. Cool. Good. I look forward to it. >And yes a couple limited releases are planned (for economic >reasons). But those releases will be made available via mp3 as well. >However, even those releases should be easy to get hold of. Great. What if someone decides to rip them off for whatever reason? What if you want to run the label full-time and need every penny/cent/whatever you can get but everyone prefers the much cheaper bootlegs that are going round? Sorry to anyone who isn't interested in this thread - if anyone wants I'll take it private email. Peace, || [CiM] || xxx_@xxxxxxx.xxx || - ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com